Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/816

* MONONGAHELA. 733 banks of the ilonon^'alula, a few miles from Fort Diiquesne (now I'ittsburg), the Anglo- American army of liraddook was defeated by the I'ronoli and Indians on July 9, 1755. MONONGAHELA. A city in Wasliinston County, Pa.. 30 miles south of Pittsburg; on the Monongahela River, and on the Pennsvfvania Railroad (Map: Pennsylvania, A 3). it is in a productive coal region, and is engaged prin- cipally in coal-mining and in manufacturing, the industrial works cimiprising glass factories, ma- chine shops, foundries, planing mills, paper mills. flour mills, etc. JSettled as early as 1792, !Monongahela was not incorporated "until 1,S73, the charter of that year being still in operation and providing for a mayor, annually elected, and a bicameral council. ' Population." in IStlO 409G: in 1900. 5173. MONONGAHELA, B.ttlk of the. See Bi;ai)iki<k. Ki)v.iii). and Fke.n-ch axd Indian .R. MONOPH'YSITES (tik. /.o^o^uff/rj,!, moiw- physitis, one who allirms the single nature of God, from ^Akvs, nioiws, single + ^iJo-is, iihysis, nature). The name ajiiilied to a large number of Christians in the fifth and sixth centuries who maintained that Christ had only (me nature. as against the orthodox doctrine that in Him humanity and divinity were perfectly united without detriment to either. The Mon'ophysites called the orthodox, by analogy. Dyophysites, i.e. believers in two natures (Gk. 'Si/o, " two, and (pvirii). The controversy sprang out of the fourth century discussions respecting the Trinitv (q.v.), and the connecting link nuiy be found in the spectilations of AiH)llinaris " of Laodicea (d. 392), who raised the cpiestion how the divine and the human could exist together in Christ. The Monophysite controversy passed through several preliminary stages. "Onc of these is marked tiy the name of Xestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whose Christology was suspected to l)e unsounil, and who was condemned bv the Council of Ephesus (431), under the leade"rship of Cyril of Alexandria. (.See Nestohus; EpiiESf.s. Cou.NciLS OF.) Another stage is con- nected with the monk Kutyches (q.v.). who held a peculiar view of the natures in Christ, dilfer- ent from that of Xestorius, yet open to sus- picion. He, too, was adjudged heretical (448), and although he was received back into fellow- ship by the 'Robber Synod' of Ephesus (449), his vindication did not stand. Meanwhili', Pope Leo I. (440-401) had written to the Bishop of Constantiniiple his celi'lirated 'Tome.' or letter, in which he defined the Catholic doctrine of the two natures. This document was luought into re(|uisition at the Council of Chakcdon (451), and upon it was baaed the official decree which set forth the orthodox Christology. According to this definition. Christ is "perfect in deity and perfect in hunuinity, truly God. and truly" man. one and the same Christ, in two natures MONOPODIAL BRANCHING. necessary fur all Ui accept whatever doctrinal decisions might be reached by the proper authori- ties. But a large part of "the Kastern CliurcU was strongly .Monophysite, and would not sur- render its convictions, in spite of the Council. The Emperors themselves did not all think alike, although they all sought, if possible, to unify the opinions of their subjects. A usurper in the East, Basili.scus by name, issued a decree con- dcnming the definition of Chalcedon (47ti). ami while many of the Eastern clergy accepted his decree, a storm of opposition was aroused. A later Emperor, Zeno, endeavored to reach a eom- I>romise by his Hcnoticon, or instrument of union (4S2), which jiractically ignored what had been accomplished at Chalcedon, anil reverted to the Xic*no-Constantinopolitan creed as the sole standard of orthodoxy. Pope Felix condemned the HowticoH. and the result was a schism be- tween East and West, lasting for about thirty- five years (484-519). Before the close of the fifth century several national churches had been formed in the East, independent of Constanti- nople, yet patriarchal in their organization, and all professing the .Monophysite faith, e.g. the Jacobites, Maronites. Armenians. Copts, Abys- sinians, etc. In Egypt some of the most extreine Monophysitcs separated from the Patriarch of Alexandila and formed a sect of their.own. They were called .Icc/i/ioVi. i.e. 'without a head." Jus- tinian (527-505). a champion of ortliodoxy. at- tempted to induce his subjects to unite on the basis of the Chalcedonian decree, and partially succeeded, chiefly by forcing his will upon the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). But his mo.st important utterances on the subject pleased neither party, and by a sort of irony of fate at the close of his life he was said liimsclf to have fallen into a heresy akin to Monojilivsitism (cf. Evagrius, llisl. Kcclcs.. iv. 39). Onl'y after the separation of the schismatic churclies'of the East, and, still more, after the rise of .Moham- medanism, which forced Oriental Christians, in self-defense, to .seek closer relations with Rome, can the long Monojjhysite struggle l)e said to have come to an end. The two-nature doe- trine, as defined at Chalcedon. triumphed, in spite of its inherent dilliculties. and remained the orthodox faith of Christendom. Consult: Gibbon, Ivunuui /■.'ki/iiic. chap. 47 (cd. bv .T. B. Burj-, London. 189(i-1900) ; Ilarnack. Hi.iloni of Doijma, vol. iv. (London. 1898); Fisher. His- lory of Chrixlian Doctrine (Xew York. 1890) ; Smith and Wace. nirtioiiary of Chrislidn ISiofi- raphy, article "Person of Christ. Controversies Respecting" (London. 1887) ; Hutton. Thr Church of the Sixth Century (London. 1897) : Hefele. //;.•!- tiiry i)f the Councils, vols. iii. and iv. (Edin- burgh. |S>i3-95). MON OPNEU'MONA (XeoLat. nnm. pi.. from Gk. n6vos, inoimx, single + vfeu/iuf, pncu- mi'in, lung). An order of fishes, .so called from the simple, unilied condition of the lung-sac. It without confusion, change, division, or separa- <'""'l"'i'«'s " ■'*i"gle family. Cerato.lida. and genus. tion." The a.loption of the Chalcedonian decree 5,™'",".*' '" "' *'"' '■"'■'"•■'' .i"i"tI .vs of the archi|ilerygMim are well developeil. I( rep- resents a very ancient stock, of which only the barramiMida (q.v.) of .ustralia now exists. Compare Dipnoi. MONOPODIAL BRANCHING (fn.m Gk. Hoviirocj, monopous, single-fniiled, from p6ms, monos, single -f rois, potis, foot). The method Dpi nniy be regarded as termimiting the theological and introducing the political period of the Mono- physite controversy. The problem at that time confronting the Empire was that of harmonizing the theolog- ienlly discordant elements of the population. Christianity being the .State religion, it was